Jan 8, 2009

Outing ‘Sharon Gould’: the hoaxer’s identity revealed

This morning I was released from my obligations of confidentiality. I can now report for the first time that the speculation has it right, writes Margaret Simons.

It has been all over the internet since yesterday afternoon — the allegation, backed by some convincing evidentiary trails, that the “Sharon Gould” hoaxer is freelance journalist and activist Katherine Wilson. This morning I was released from my obligations of confidentiality. I can now report for the first time that the speculation has it right. Katherine Wilson is Sharon Gould.

For more on how people worked it out, and who had it first, see my blog.

Free Trial

Proudly annoying those in power since 2000.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions


Leave a comment

21 thoughts on “Outing ‘Sharon Gould’: the hoaxer’s identity revealed

  1. Laura

    This was perhaps worth noting in a blog, but probably not quite so extensively in Crikey. I don’t know that it really warranted very much explanation/justification and is beginning to detract from the key issue of editorial deficiencies at Quadrant. The focus should remain on Windschuttle.

  2. Pappinbarra Fox

    In one month”? You are joking. In one week it will be forgotten. I fervently hope.

  3. Mr. Fake Name

    “because an author has snuck through an article known to have some fraudulent foot-notes?”

    THE “AUTHOR” DOESN’T EVEN EXIST. NEVER HAS NEVER WILL. Windschuttle didn’t even bother to check that the author was a real existing person in the world. He accepted an essay from a complete figment, a lie, a hollow name.

    Quadrant would have been better off printing an essay by Mickey Mouse or Bugs Bunny. Even they can be said to exist more than ‘Sharon Gould’. They even turn up legitimate results in Google, or so I’m told!

  4. JamesK

    To Rick Roush:

    Dear Rick if Crikey were to attempt to correct all its errors there would simply be no time to put out daily editions such as this filled with still more errors…….

    Yours Unfaithfully, Jonathan ‘Red Boy’ Green

  5. John James

    I’ve got to say I just dont see what all this fuss and high fives amongst the Left commenteriat is about. Quadrant is a superb magazine precisely because it promotes debate and takes contributions from a cross section of opinion. Its founding editor was a devout Catholic convert and poet and its most recent editor a religious sceptic. Quadrant’s board is drawn from different and diverse backgrounds. You couldn’t get more diverse than Bill Hayden and Peter Coleman and Quadrant, unlike its rivals, such as The Monthly, publishes letters of criticism. It never pretends to be peer reviewed but. in a sense, the reviewing is done by the readership. One will often find letters taking an article or author to task from a previous edition so why the self congratulations because an author has snuck through an article known to have some fraudulent foot-notes?
    Windshuttle is not a trained scientist but a very well trained historian. His criticism of some of the black armband crew was precisle that they were loose and sloppy with their own work, often fabricating facts. Long will I remember Lyndall Ryan’s protests that there are ” two truths”. Reminded me of the Bolshevik show trials.

  6. john

    I don’t get it. What circumstance has forced Katherine Wilson’s hand? Simons/Crikey pressure? Needs explaining.

  7. Lakun

    Who’s Keith Windshuttle?

  8. john pasquarelli

    typical Leftie Hoaxer – sniping from the bunker of anonymity – AND a coincidental pregnancy! – any dumbo knows that kitchens can be warm places. John Pasquarelli Newstead VIC (03)54762004

  9. David Robinson

    Would someone PLEASE tell Ms Simons that she ain’t the story

  10. Kato

    As Mr Fake Name points out, and I have commented before, the fact that the existence of the author of the article was not even checked IS a big deal – for ANY publication. That’s the main issue to keep in mind here, regardless of whether there is a bit of point scoring going on. Also, the idea of publishing an article merely to generate debate (as Quadrant does), irrespective of the veracity of the content, is so incredibly dubious, that I wonder how anyone can brush this off as a meaningless exercise.

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details